James O’Keefe has done it again — this time capturing video of a paid Obama Organizing for America director in Houston, Texas, assisting a double-voting scheme directed toward Florida. In the video, an undercover Obama “volunteer” tells Organizing for America’s Stephanie Caballero that she wanted to vote twice to help reelect President Obama.

The undercover “volunteer” tells Caballero, “I’m going to vote by ballot and then I have mine here too.”

After the volunteer tells Caballero her plan, Caballero volunteers to help the double voter get the forms to request an absentee ballot in Florida. “I’ll print that out and you just have to mail it back,” Caballero says.

The undercover “volunteer” says, “I don’t want to get in any trouble, but like I said, if no one’s gonna know.”

Later, when the plan to vote twice is put into effect, Caballero coyly and laughingly asks: “Are you going to do what I think you are going to do?” — namely vote twice. When the volunteer says, “Well, if no one is going to know.” Caballero then prints out and gives the forms to the volunteer to vote twice.

Be sure to click through for the video.

The article’s author, former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams, points out the far, far left connections of Ms. Caballero and asks a pertinent question, one posed by O’Keefe himself in the video: What proof is there that this is just, as OfA will inevitably claim, an “isolated incident?”

That’s why we need a large turnout on Election Day — we have to get past the margin of theft, something the Left is all too willing to engage in.

CORRECTION: Thanks to Legal Insurrection, I’ve discovered OfA is not technically the Obama campaign itself, but an arm of the DNC formed by Obama. As Professor Jacobson points out, this is likely a distinction without a difference, but I want to be accurate. And with the DNC out of cash, one wonders if OfA can afford all those extra ballots…

For nearly two weeks after the murder of four Americans in an attack on our consulate in Benghazi, the White House, our Ambassador to the United Nations, and the Secretary of State repeatedly claimed, with variations, that the massacre arose from a protest against an anti-Islamic video that either got out of control or was infiltrated by extremists. That culminated in the President, himself, making that claim by inference in a speech in front of the United Nations. When the story started falling apart, they claimed they were operating on the “best information” they had at the time, were “still investigating,” and, by implication, trying to blame their intelligence services and professional staff.

That sound you hear in the background? That’s the State Department senior staff throwing Secretary Clinton and the White House under the bus:

Prior to the attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi late in the evening on Sept. 11, there was no protest outside the compound, a senior State Department official confirmed today, contradicting initial administration statements suggesting that the attack was an opportunistic reaction to unrest caused by an anti-Islam video.

In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, two senior State Department officials gave a detailed accounting of the events that lead to the death of Amb. Chris Stevens and three other Americans. The officials said that prior to the massive attack on the Benghazi compound by dozens of militants carrying heavy weaponry, there was no unrest outside the walls of the compound and no protest that anyone inside the compound was aware of.

In fact, Stevens hosted a series of meetings on the compound throughout the day, ending with a meeting with a Turkish diplomat that began at 7:30 in the evening, and all was quiet in the area.

“The ambassador walked guests out at 8:30 or so; there was nobody on the street. Then at 9:40 they saw on the security cameras that there were armed men invading the compound,” a senior State Department official said. “Everything is calm at 8:30 pm, there is nothing unusual. There had been nothing unusual during the day outside.”

(Emphases added, and read it all)

Keep in mind that the government knew this was a terrorist attack within 24 hours of the event happening, but there was still some question, thanks to administration dissembling, about whether a protest was used as a cover by al Qaeda-allied groups.

Now we know the truth, no thanks to our elected officials or those whom they appoint.

We were lied to, repeatedly and, there’s no doubt, deliberately. Our ambassador was raped and murdered. Three other Americans died as well. We knew that night an attack was underway, though the president still went to bed. Within a day, they had confirmed it was a terrorist attack and knew at least some of the instigators.

And yet for nearly two weeks, President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Ambassador Rice, and their mouthpieces all lied to us, insisting it was a protest over some obscure video. They even had the maker rousted by the cops, sacrificing his right to free speech to maintain their lie.

Now, we all know politicians lie. It’s in the nature of the job, even required by it at times. But there’s a difference between spinning a story or lying for the good of national security, on the one hand, and insisting black is white on the other, telling a pathetic lie just to cover your incompetent arse. The latter is absolutely unacceptable and destroys any credibility the liars may still have had. And the only reason to do it was to protect the bunglers whose decisions lead to this mess, including the President of the United States, who had been loudly and obviously prematurely claiming al Qaeda was “on its heels.” . Such a “bump in the road” might be bad for reelection chances, don’t you know?

Congressman Issa is holding hearings this morning in DC on this fiasco. Let’s hope that these bring out not only the truth, but force the resignations of Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice, both of whom have disgraced their offices.

As for President Obama, there’s no need for resignation. A crushing, humiliating defeat in November will suffice as reward for his deadly incompetence.